Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 9th, 2025

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Okay.

You are receiving some benefits by virtue of being a currently serving member. For the benefit of the committee, can you lay out for us what those benefits are?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Mrs. Thompson, you were frozen on our screen. Did you hear the questions from Mr. Casey?

[Ashley Thompson]

No, Madam Chair, I didn't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

I don't want to be disrespectful in any form, but maybe turning off your camera may help us.

[Ashley Thompson]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

I have to apologize for even requesting that. Wait a second, and I'll ask Mr. Casey to ask his questions and then, as you answer, if you don't mind, I think that will help us with the connectivity this morning.

I sincerely apologize.

[Ashley Thompson]

Okay.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Ms. Thompson, the two areas in which I want to focus my questioning are around the benefits you receive by virtue of being a serving member and what you are being denied by virtue of the determination that your husband's tragic death was unrelated to service.

Can we start with the benefits that you are currently receiving by virtue of being a serving member?

[Ashley Thompson]

I have received upwards of 50 sessions of therapy for myself due to the traumatic event that happened. Any type of relaxation or anything that would help me is covered through the CAF. I was also fortunate to attend Wounded Warriors' program for surviving families. That was a week in Kingston, which the CAF allowed me to go to out of work.

Anything to do with mental health with my career, I'm very open and honest about, because I have been through a traumatic experience where I'm not scared to lose my job. The stigma isn't there for me within the CAF. That's because I experienced my spouse's decline with his mental health with no support and being fearful of what the actions were going to do for his job and his personal life. For me, I watched that happen, so I don't have that stigma. I will speak out that I was struggling, and I continue to struggle.

VAC, for my side, has been there. This was the easy process, My VAC. His Veterans Affairs is completely different. For the forces, they are completely supportive of me, but my children don't get anything.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Am I to understand correctly that the reason for the complete disengagement by Veterans Affairs Canada is that there has been a determination that your husband's tragic death was not related to service? Is that right?

[Ashley Thompson]

Yes, sir. DND has ruled that, yes, he was on duty, but his death was not service related.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Can you tell us a bit about the process that landed at that result? You say there was a board of inquiry.

[Ashley Thompson]

Yes, automatically there was a board of inquiry and a criminal investigation when he passed. They had four suspects they had to rule out within the criminal investigation. Once the criminal investigation was done, DND did a board of inquiry as it was on DND property that it happened, and he was on active duty. They interviewed people from his first and second years of service, when he was the happy-go-lucky guy at work. He was always smiling and would give you the shirt off his back. That is what they testified to. They never testified in the BOI about his last five years in the forces. Everything was prior to that. All his deployments the last five years before he passed, none of that was in the BOI. [Technical difficulty—Editor ] We are missing a deployment to Kuwait in 2021, and all of his remedial measures are not in there.

The board of inquiry deemed it non service related, because they said his deployments were uneventful. To be honest with you, I don't know what that means. They just gave me a summary of it. It did not include interviews with whoever they had interviewed. I sat in for five of those interviews, which were all speaking to Michael's personal life, not to his service. Then, at the end, I was handed a brief summary of the BOI, which I have, and Veterans Affairs requested that. It took about six months for the Canadian Armed Forces to release it to VAC. Then I got the decision letter that it was a non-service-related death.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Wow.

Okay. Thank you. There's so much more I want to ask you, but I do want to pose a question to Captain Le Scelleur.

How much time do I have, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

You have less than a minute.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Captain, thank you for your service, and thank you for your testimony.

Much of your testimony spoke to your professional life and experience, but I've had the opportunity to read your very impressive bio on the Veterans Affairs website. If you're comfortable doing so, could you talk a bit about your experience in terms of your service, your story and your travails with PTSD?

[Hélène Le Scelleur]

I would say that I have had a very good career filled with very interesting opportunities.

Of course, so many traumatic things happened in Afghanistan. The accident I had there left scars I wasn’t aware of at the time. When I returned from Afghanistan, no one understood or acknowledged what I had been through there. My condition was chalked up to me separating from my spouse, and my psychological distress was considered to have nothing to do with anything I had experienced in the past, including sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. My experience was very much discounted, even ignored.

I would say I was treated well, because I was referred to professionals. I received services and medication, but the hardest thing I experienced in the Canadian Armed Forces was never properly acknowledged.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I would like to thank you once again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much.

You have the floor for six minutes, Ms. Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to continue in that same vein, Ms. Le Scelleur. I heard you mention a number of concepts in your opening remarks, including institutional betrayal and not feeling heard. The only thing I can say is that not only am I shocked, I am also ashamed. I don’t want to say any more, because I would like to hear from you. Please tell us what happened.

[Hélène Le Scelleur]

I would say that institutions become a problem when they forget their primary mission, which is to protect, support and remedy when necessary. They cease to fulfill this role when procedure takes precedence over people, when there is more concern for administrative issues than compassion.

As I said earlier, responsibility is too often placed on the person who is suffering. Where does the institution’s responsibility lie in these situations? There are a great many administrative hurdles, as Ms. Thompson mentioned in her testimony. There are threats to cut benefits and a failure to assess the real impact of policies. All of this leads to a breakdown in support, which becomes a moral injury.

What I have observed over the past several years is a lack of accountability and oversight with regard to practices. Programs are funded and partnerships are announced, but there is very little in the way of monitoring, impact assessment or even accountability to determine whether these initiatives are actually improving the lives of veterans. When there is no oversight, transparency or corrective mechanisms, trust is eroded, which relates directly to suicide. How can we hope to prevent suicide if the system itself is contributing to this suffering?

Women veterans, who are still too often overlooked in public policy, are doubly excluded. They face both a male-dominated military institutional culture and a lack of measures tailored to their specific physical, psychological and social health needs. Suicide prevention has to go beyond simply offering clinical services. It also requires institutional remedy: The institution must acknowledge wrongdoing, take accountability for its mistakes, assess the consequences and, above all, implement best practices. I don’t think any best practices are in place.

On this topic, I would like to go back to the issue of the two permanent memorials that affect me and several other people. On December 2, 2024, two clear requests were made by Mr. Luc Desilets, a former vice-chair of this committee, to Mr. Steven Harris. First, he asked that the apology our group requested be issued. Second, he asked him to provide this committee with information about the decision-making process that led to this list of erroneous names that appears on these memorials being approved. My question here is simple: As of today, October 9, 2025, what is the status of these two requests?

This kind of mistake is not only embarrassing, it is deeply traumatic. This could all have been avoided had there been simple validation mechanisms in place and respect for those who truly made the ultimate sacrifice. Institutions become a problem when they fail in their role as guardians of collective well-being.

It is often said that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

If an institution chooses not to actively engage in remediation, trauma prevention and ethical vigilance, it becomes an aggravating factor in suicide risk. The responsibility for bringing about change should not fall on vulnerable individuals; it must be assumed and championed by organizations that have a moral and societal duty to protect those they serve, including women veterans, which the system still too often overlooks.

Thank you.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I’m very moved.

I have over a minute and a half left.

We’re talking about women, and I would like to know more. There is a bill being studied that aims to replace the entire legal process when there are allegations or incidents of sexual assault. Our other witness just explained this to committee members.

What does this entail? Do you have any examples?

[Hélène Le Scelleur]

If I understand correctly, your question is about sexual misconduct. Is that correct?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes.

[Hélène Le Scelleur]

For veterans, it’s a little less visible, I would say, because we are not surrounded as much by people who are still in service.

What I’ve heard is that it’s still not easy. The response has not yet lived up to what was requested. Many women still suffer in silence, which is something that should be raised.